Life after the festival

It is now a year since Ukraine – together with Poland – hosted Euro 2012. The preparations took five years, taking in the now customary public spending on stadiums and infrastructure. Then it lasted roughly one month.

So what do Ukrainians think about Euro 2012 and its legacy? Well, to answer that it is important to first look at what needed to be done to be able to host the tournament. The building of the Donbass Arena in Donetsk began before 2007 and was principally down to the ambitions of the Shakhtar Donetsk owner Rinat Akhmetov, not Euro 2012.

The renovations of the stadiums in Kharkiv and Kiev, from a sporting point of view, were fully justified. Last season, for the first time ever, Metalist Kharkiv finished second in the Ukrainian Premier League and are continuing to grow. They have excellent support and their stadium is always well-attended.

The Olympiyskiy stadium in Kiev is the main arena in the country, where the national team play the majority of their home matches, and it needed improving. In addition, after moving to the new stadium Dynamo Kyiv's attendances have increased.

In Lviv, however, there is a completely different situation. The town's team, FC Karpaty, are unhappy with how much the Arena Lviv has cost and have only played a few games there. They are now playing at their old stadium, Ukraine Stadium, even citing bad luck as one of the reasons for not playing at Arena Lviv.

As a result, the 35,000-capacity arena that was built specifically for the Euro 2012 is vacant and loaded with debts, reportedly 2m hrivnas (£160,000) for just electricity and water. In addition the construction company that built the stadium claim they are owed 4.3m hrivnas.

There have even been media reports that the stadium might be demolished as that would allegedly cost less than maintaining it with no football matches there.

The country's infrastructure has been vastly improved, no doubt, but it has not been straightforward. The airports, which were renovated/rebuilt before the European Championship are not used at full capacity. The roads, an age-old problem in Ukraine, were partially resurfaced and modernised – but only in the host cities and on some important routes. However, some of the new roads did not even last the first Ukrainian winter and are in a bad state again. The electric trains that were bought specifically for the Euro 2012 also became the victims of frost. With the advent of winter, they started breaking down regularly and became the Russian roulette of public transport. Passengers simply did not know whether they would reach their destination or not.

In addition, the new Hyundai cruise train around Ukraine is half-empty, mainly due to the fact that the tickets are far more expensive in comparison with other trains.

The increase in the number of tourists in Ukraine was wholly expected, owing to Euro 2012. According to various sources, after the European Championship until the end of the 2012 the numbers of visitors to the country increased by at least 20% in comparison with the same period the previous year. There has been an increase this year too although it has not been as high as anticipated. Most years see a 10-12% increase in tourism in Ukraine, according to experts, and the prognosis for 2013 is around 15%.

There was, sadly, no football boom to speak of after the tournament. Of course, before and during the tournament football was everywhere but as soon as the festivities ended and Spain lifted their trophy, the old problems returned. Some of the problems even seemed worse. In fact, the Ukrainian top flight is going through one of its most challenging times ever. FC Kryvbas, who finished seventh in the Premier League last year, has ceased to exist because of financial problems.

In addition the two teams who were promoted to the top flight at the end of last season decided to remain in the first division. FC Stal Alchevsk and FC Oleksandriya both realised that promotion to the Premier League would not be beneficial to them. In fact, it would cost them more than it is worth. So the end result was that the two teams who had been relegated from the Premier League could stay in it this season as well. Not an ideal situation.

Part of the problem in Ukraine is that football is not business but in some senses a toy for wealthy entrepreneurs. Most clubs rely on the wallets of rich men (although one could argue that it is the same in many, many other countries).

On a positive note, there is the emergence of a number of exciting talents in Ukrainian football, and there is the hope that Euro 2012 will have a lasting effect in that respect. Maksym Koval, the Dynamo Kyiv goalkeeper, confidently follows in the footsteps of Oleksandr Shovkovskiy and at 21 is the first-choice goalkeeper of the team, seeking for a place at first XI of the national team.

Shakhtar, meanwhile, paid €3m (£2.6m)for the 17-year-old defender Eduard Sobol, despite the fact that he had played only nine matches in the UPL. This season he will make his debut in the Champions League and is the future of Ukrainian football. All of this is good news for young Ukrainian players. With so many South American imports – mainly Brazilian – they need to know that if they are good enough they will still make it to the big clubs.

To summarise, it can be said that Euro 2012 was a celebration. But, as is the case after most good parties, there is the hangover and the reflecting over whether it was actually worth it. In Ukraine's case it can be said that it was definitely worth it but that the knock-on effects have not been as great as we would have hoped.

Igor Boyko is a Ukrainian football writer, working for, among others, football.ua